Judge Suggests Decriminalization of Drug Use by Adults : Narcotics: Jurist is third in county to publicly advocate a change in nation’s approach to ‘war on drugs.’ Sheriff disagrees.

A third Orange County jurist is publicly advocating a radical change in the nation’s “war on drugs,” suggesting that the adult use of all drugs be decriminalized.

Superior Court Judge James L. Smith says the government should sell narcotics to put drug dealers out of business and eliminate the criminal activity associated with the drug trade.

“We spend an inordinate amount of time, money, resources and lives on the drug war and we’re not really getting a lot of bang for our buck,” the 55-year-old judge said in a recent interview. “I don’t think that we’re making any headway the way things are going now.”

With his views, Smith joins Superior Court Judge James P. Gray and U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald W. Rose in calling for a different tack to address the problems of drugs.

Last April, Gray and Rose created an uproar by suggesting that drugs be made available and legal for adult use. They said the drug war was being lost and the current drug laws were ineffective, perpetuating crime and creating an enormous economic drain on the system.

One of the judges’ harshest critics is Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates, who publicly slammed their proposals and even questioned Gray’s fitness as judge. On Wednesday, Gates said that he was “surprised” by Smith’s views on drugs.

“I disagree with them,” he said. Gates described Smith as a friend and declined to comment further until he has talked to the judge.

Rose said he was pleased to hear that another judge has concluded that new ways of dealing with the drug problem are needed.

“I’m planning on writing him a letter and welcoming him to a very small club of judges,” Rose said. “I think it’s inevitable that more (judges) will come to this conclusion. If nothing is done, the system is going to collapse under its own weight.”

Gray was on vacation and unavailable for comment.

Smith, who describes himself as a “middle-of-the road conservative” with “fairly plain vanilla views” said his opinions are not as radical as they might appear.

“It really seems logical,” he said.

Under his plan, the government would produce and sell drugs to all adults who want to use them. He said he would limit the amount of drugs people could buy to individual doses. The proceeds from the drugs would go toward drug education, prevention and treatment, he added.

Smith said it would be illegal for people to “stockpile” the drugs or buy them from a non-government source. Drug use would also be illegal for minors, he said.

To get rid of a black market for drugs, all laws dealing with the sale, distribution and manufacture of drugs would remain on the books. In fact, he said, the punishment for those crimes “would be kicked way up” as a deterrent.

He said his plan would “pull the market out from under” big- and small-time drug dealers and “take the financial incentive” out of the drug trade.

Like Gray and Rose, Smith said his opinions “evolved” with his years and experiences on the bench until he finally concluded that the so-called “war on drugs” was not succeeding.

“I don’t know if we are losing, but we’re not winning,” Smith said. “It’s like the Hundred Years’ War. If we are going to be in a war, then we should win it, and if we can’t win, we should change our approach to things.”

Smith resists calling his plan a drug legalization proposal because he believes that the public equates legalization with advocating their use. He said he does not advocate drug use.

Smith made his views public last week, after a poll was released by the Drug Use Is Life Abuse program, which found that nearly 80% of county residents were opposed to legalization. Smith said he was “surprised it wasn’t 99%.”

But he also said polls can be misleading and constructed to elicit any kind of response desired. He said he thought another type of question explaining his plan might bring a different result.

Although word of his views spread quickly throughout the courthouse, his comments did not stir the type of furor that Rose’s or Gray’s did.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Roger R. Stanton said that he disagreed with the judges’ views but that he thought that they had a right to their opinions. He added that the debate on the drug legalization issue might even be “healthy.”

“Nonetheless, I disagree and support the tough anti-drug stand by our sheriff,” Stanton said.

Among his colleagues and acquaintances, Smith, who has been on the bench for 21 years, is known as a fair, well-liked and open-minded judge.

Before becoming a judge, he spent two years as a county prosecutor and another seven in private practice. In 1971, former Gov. Ronald Reagan appointed Smith to the bench in West Municipal Court, where he served until his election to Superior Court in 1980.

Some of his colleagues said they were surprised that he went public with his opinions on drugs, and a few questioned whether such statements were proper for a man in his position.

“I still question the propriety” of such statements, said Presiding Court Judge Donald E. Smallwood, who was initially concerned that Gray’s statements may have violated a judicial canon dealing with the appearance of impartiality.

Smith said he did not think his opinions created any conflict with his job and was not worried about a public backlash.

“The nice thing about getting a little older,” Smith said, “is you get a certain piece of mind that allows you the luxury of being able to say what you think when you want to say it without feeling that you’re taking any chances.”